See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281241824

Draw a Person test

Research · August 2015

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3831.9841

CITATIONS READS
0 63,830

1 author:

Elmon Musa Mpangane

University of Limpopo
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

HIV and AIDS Counsellor View project

Psychometry students View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Elmon Musa Mpangane on 25 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ABSTRACT
This study was conducted on the basis of
understanding the Draw A Person test as a
psychometric tool. It includes a brief historical back,
description, application and a discussion of different
studies about the controversies of the validity and
reliability of the test.

DRAW A PERSON ElMON M. MPANGANE

PSYCHOMETRICS AND PSYCHODIAGNOSTICS

TEST
UNIVERSITY OF LIMPOPO, DEPARTMENT OF
PSYCHOLOGY
DRAW A PERSON TEST (PSYCHOMETRICS TEST)

1. INTRODUCTION
Draw a Person test is a human figure drawing tests which is meant to be administered to

children, and adolescents however at some point it is administered to adults. The aim of

the test is to assess how the child perceives the people around them including the family

and other psychological activities on, interpersonal and cognitive setting. This study

focuses on the use of DAP and its validity. However other topics to be covered include;

historical background and description of the instrument.

2. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The Draw a Person test (DAP) was evolved from 1948 authored by Karen Machover.

According to Bond, Southers and Sproul (2015), the DAP test was developed with an aim

to supplement Stanford Binet intelligence tests, with a non-verbal test. However later on

it was found that the details which were contained in the drawing of person were more

useful, therefore the first assessment tool through drawing was made by Florence

Goodenough in 1926 and it was introduced as Draw a Man test (Jolly, 2010).

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE TEST

DAP is a projective test, that allow an examinee to respond to questions through

drawings. Projective tests can be applied in various settings from schools, corporate, and

private practices to assess different psychological aspects include: personality, family

background, intelligence, physical and emotional abuse, depression etc. Fan (2012),

1
Mpangane E is a very motivated Honors Psychology student enrolling at University of Limpopo. He holds a BA
degree and wishes to enroll for Masters Clinical Psychology in the nearest future. His future research will be based
on African psychology (Indigenous Knowledge System). Any comments and mistakes spotted on this paper can be
directed to 201218056@keyaka.ul.ac.za for improvement of my academic writing skills.
1
UNIVERSITY OF LIMPOPO, DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY, MPANGANE E 2015,
DRAW A PERSON TEST (PSYCHOMETRICS TEST)

asserts that this test is more appropriate when administered to children in grade one and

grade two. The tests is used to understand the interaction within the members of the

family and the perception of the patient over their family and the cognitive functioning of

the test taker. Usually clinicians find these tests to be easily administered, and the

common instruction of the test is structured as “draw a person doing something”. More

over the test is timed to a maximum of 5 minutes per picture and it is advised that if the

child doesn’t complete each picture on time the clinician should give instruction to the

examinee to continue draw the other picture (Nagleria et al, 1991).

4. TEST APPLICATION

Ozer (2010), claims that there are two main context where the human figure drawings

can be put to used, this included; prediction of children intellectual development and to

evaluate the emotions of the child. However Nagleria, McNeish, and Bardo, (1991),

argues that this test can be used for screening on children to identify aspects like

emotional and behavioral problems. Furthermore in an educational settings, this test can

be used as a portion of the regular psychoeducational assessment. All the drawings are

assumed to have a different meaning about the examinee and the person being drawn

(Yong, 2015). Many psychologists and researchers rely on drawing tests because they

believe that the drawings represents the child expression of thoughts, and because it

works on their advantage since the child perceive the act of drawing as fun.

However Kniel and Kniel (2008), used the DAP to measure intelligence amongst children,

and a conclusion was made that the “…changes in the child’s drawings of a man or a

woman represent the development of cognitive complexity or intellectual maturity...” (p9).

2
UNIVERSITY OF LIMPOPO, DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY, MPANGANE E 2015,
DRAW A PERSON TEST (PSYCHOMETRICS TEST)

Moreover in Yong (2015) revealed that a child’s changes in their ability of drawing

represent cognitive or intellectual maturation. In their findings a 3 year old child made a

drawing of a person which only had a head and legs, whereas another 4 year old child

sketched a person where the mouth and both eyes were present and also the legs and

arms were present. The assumption that intelligence can be evaluated through examining

the changes of the pictures drawn was supported by Kubierske (2008), although he

emphasized that the changes represents the intellectual and physical development but

not the chronological age of the test taker.

Furthermore Kubierske (2008) added that development allows children to apply newly

learned abilities which may include motor skills and observational skills. One of the crucial

use of DAP was to make the drawer unconsciously transfer information to the examiner

and to assess emotional disturbances. According to Kubierske (2008), the logic behind

the use of projective tests is built on the perspective that information about attitude is

communicated non verbally and the current mental state, beliefs and feelings would

influence what is being drawn.

According to Catte (1998), DAP, is based on Luquet’s theory which asserts that a drawing

produced by a child is related to his or her notion of that drawing and could therefore be

used as a measure of mental development. In addition to the ideology of projective tests

communicating thoughts of the patients (Kumar, Nizamie, Abhishek and Prasana, 2014),

argued that these tests can actually be used in identifying suicidal ideation amongst

depressed individuals.

3
UNIVERSITY OF LIMPOPO, DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY, MPANGANE E 2015,
DRAW A PERSON TEST (PSYCHOMETRICS TEST)

It is believed that Machover developed the DAP test as an attempt to stimulate the traits,

impulses, conflict, anxieties, compensations, and conflicts compensations characteristic

of an individual. This was further proved by Lev-Wiesel and Hershkovitz (2000), who used

the test on violent prisoners with the purposes to identify remorseful perpetrators amongst

those who aren’t. Moreover the drawings were separated and distributed anonymously to

art therapists who didn’t know the prior behavior of the perpetrator nor the perpetrator,

indicators such as mouth exclusion and fingers, claw of hands, arms turned inward, over

shaded chin were used, [this indicators were also used by Evarretta (2014), who measure

aggression among schizophrenic patients]. In analysis of the indicators, the results

showed that certain individual were still aggressive and showed no remorse of their act.

Although Reithmiller and Handler (1997), indicated that a good clinician, even after seeing

the drawings they would like to intercommunicate with the patients before assuming a

certain diagnosis. However in conclusion, Lev-Wiesel and Hershkovitz (2000), advised

that drawings in these kind of settings should be used as additional tool rather than as

the main tool.

5. VALIDITY

DAP is used worldwide by clinicians, although Arteche, Bandeira, and Hutz (2010), have

noticed some flaws about the system, which some of them includes the gender of the first

drawn, which theoretically it is expected that the first person to be drawn should be of the

same sex of the examinee, this has been found to be a misconception since the gender

of the drawn changes as the child grows (Arteche et al, 2010). However some justification

about gender being changed by the drawer includes cultural background and gender

identity crisis, furthermore Farylo and Paludi (2001), concluded by saying that this
4
UNIVERSITY OF LIMPOPO, DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY, MPANGANE E 2015,
DRAW A PERSON TEST (PSYCHOMETRICS TEST)

assumption are “idiosyncratic” (p.578) which they referred to drawing of conclusion from

small number of sample.

Furthermore Bond et al, (2015) argued on the notion that “…projective tests [can] reveal

something about the unconscious through the use of ambiguous stimuli”. According to

Bond et al, (2015) there’s very little arguable evidence on such claims and it is doubtable

that this test can still do. Additionally it has been found that projective test have a very

low validity co-efficiency, and most manuals only mention findings which are supporting

the test not the ones against the tests.

The DAP has been criticized as measure of intelligence, these criticism led to a

comparison of the DAP and other measure of intelligence such as the Wechsler

intelligence scales. Rehrig (2015) compared the DAP: IQ of five year old children, to

Wechsler preschool and primary scale intelligence (WPPSI-III) a correlation was found

only for the coding subtask and non-verbal tasks which included coping shapes e.g. block

design. Therefore the DAP has been found to have similar weaknesses in identifying high

intellectual functioning (Rehrig, 2015). However amongst mentally retarded people Dyken

(1996), found that DAP tend to measure visual motor development other than intelligence.

In conclusion Reithmiller and Handler (1997); McPhee and Wegner (1976); and Howitt

(1984) , claimed that the DAP is invalid when concerning the measuring of personality,

they argue that clinicians find it difficult to demonstrate if the tool can really measure

personality, which make most of the clinicians to use general knowledge. It has been

looked at another angle that experience is lacking in the field of those who put the test

into practice therefore this jeopardizes the validity of the tool. Emphasizes has been to

have proper training for the practitioners.

5
UNIVERSITY OF LIMPOPO, DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY, MPANGANE E 2015,
DRAW A PERSON TEST (PSYCHOMETRICS TEST)

Despite all the critiques that has been made by other researchers, a conclusion has been

made to adopt construct validity which is viewed as “…the extent to which a test captures

a specific theoretical construct or trait, and it overlaps with some of the other aspects of

validity” (McLeod, 2013, p3). In considering the definition of construct validity it shows

that the DAP test is based on construct validity, because the tests explains its

assumptions following certain theoretical frame work and theoretical definitions on what

the test are supposed to measure. This shows that the test cannot be relied on as a tool

to measure the aspects it claims to measure in absentia of a theoretical assumption or

definition.

6. RELIABILITY

Nagleria et al, (1991), acknowledges that most projective tests have a history of a low

(<0.20) reliability. However the DAP internal reliability was determined using Cronbach’s

alpha, using the standardization sample, and coefficient was calculated for each group.

The man, the woman, and self-item were summed together for each subject, and these

items scores were for each subject and these values were used in the computation.

Results proved that the DAP: SPED has proper level if internal reliability for what the test

claims to measure (Nagleria, 1991).

Bekhit, Thomas, and Jolley (2005), reported that drawing psychological assessments are

mostly used by clinical psychologists who specializes in children, it is believed that the

drawings facilitate the discussion of their thoughts and feelings, especially for children

who have moderate learning difficulties. It has also been revealed that these

psychological assessments requires less or no training for a psychologist to use therefore

6
UNIVERSITY OF LIMPOPO, DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY, MPANGANE E 2015,
DRAW A PERSON TEST (PSYCHOMETRICS TEST)

most of those who put the test in to practice just use it to facilitate but not for the purpose

which the test should serve, therefore this leads to a controversies when evaluating the

reliability of the tool (Bhekhit et al, 2005).

On the other hand Srivastava, Dhal, Chugh, Mehta, Sagar, and Sreenivas (2008),

asserted that the draw a person test was found to have more inter and intra rater reliability

when administered on Indian children with psychiatric disorders. The study was

conducted based on 90 children who were diagnosed for anxiety, depression, and

somatoform disorders. Furthermore the reliability was also reviewed by Laak, Goede,

Aleva, and Rijsvijk (2005), who evaluated the hypothesis that DAP can be used as an

indicator for emotions and intelligence, the study was based on 115 participants 7 – 19

year old pupils who went to school at specials education institutions. However their results

showed that the impulsiveness and self-image from their human figure drawings was low,

(less than .60) whereas on the judgement the study show reliable results of (.79 to 89).

DAP tests are likely to affect the gender of the test taker, according to Dickson, Saylor,

and Finch (1990), Machover presumed that sex of the figure drawn reflect the gender of

the individual producing the drawing. Additionally it was found later on that the pressure

use were indeed true after the study of (Dickson et al, 1990), which revealed that most of

the children (71.3%) participated in the study drew same sex and the rest (28.7%) drew

opposite sex. An additional study conducted by Huston and Terwilliger (2001), who stated

that there is consistency between the assumption an the evidence after conducting the

study.

7
UNIVERSITY OF LIMPOPO, DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY, MPANGANE E 2015,
DRAW A PERSON TEST (PSYCHOMETRICS TEST)

Amongst all criticism of the DAP, the tool has been proved to have appropriate reliability,

this is supported by numerous study including Williams, Fall, Eaves, and Woods-Groves

(2006); Fisher (1959); Carmody and Crossman (2011); and Crusco (2013), who conduct

studies in relation to prove the extent to which the tool is found valid. However this studies

lead to a conclusion by the researchers that the tool is reliable supporting the claims made

by Nagleria et al (1991), in conclusion some researchers were quoted saying that the “…

DAP:SPED’s reliability using various measures of consistency. Computations of

Cronbach’s alpha had a range of .67 to .78, indicating a good level of internal consistency,

particularly for a projective measure that is based on a rater’s judgement of items present

in a drawing…” (Crusco, 2013 p5). Furthermore Williams et al (2006), also made remarks

like “The results of this study were supportive and consistent with the internal consistency

and inters corer reliability coefficients…” (p142).

7. SCORING

The DAP; SPED consist of two item, first the items responsible for figure dimensions, this

includes figure size and placement on the page. This items are scored using the templates

for each of the three age categories. Moreover there are also raters for the content of the

drawing to detect things like shading, frowning mouth, erasure and others. A point is only

awarded when the drawing meet the criteria of the drawing (Nagleria et al, 1991).

According to Negleria et al, (1991), the template helps clinicians through avoiding the

need to measure the size nor the location of the drawing on the paper. There are ten

complete template and they are divided according to their purposes, the first four are used

8
UNIVERSITY OF LIMPOPO, DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY, MPANGANE E 2015,
DRAW A PERSON TEST (PSYCHOMETRICS TEST)

to score the subject of a man, woman and self-drawing, and the second three are used

to score according to a certain age.

Terre Blanche (2013) stated that in interpreting and scoring both the projection tests, one

has to take into considerations certain indicators when examining phenomenon such

abuse, aggression, intelligence and personality. Wern (2015) has outlined that in scoring

HFD specifically DAP using the Goodenough: DAP, one has to take into consideration

that the test is scored according to classes, which are explained in the following; Class A,

the preliminary where the drawing cannot be recognized as human, and it is presented

as an aimless drawing score=0. And if the lines are controlled and are more of a

geometrical form score=1. Class B, if all figures drawn can be recognized as human

drawing an additional point is given and there are no half points. The scoring is based on

the following.

(a). Gross details; this refers to the presence (body, head, legs, trunk, the length and

breadth of the trunks and shoulders. (b). Attachments; check if the limbs [both upper and

lower limbs] are attached to the trunk and if they are attached correctly, the presence of

the neck and if the necks joins the head and the trunk. (c). Head details (presence of the

eyes, one or both), mouth, nose, and both of them in two dimensions, both lips, hair and

nostrils. (d). Clothing; firstly check if the clothes are present, check if the clothing are non-

transparent, check if the clothing are definitely indicated including hat, t-shirt, trouser, belt,

neck tie etc. (Nagleria et al 1991; Wern, 2015).

(e). Hand details; check the presence of fingers, correct number of fingers, fingers in two

dimension and their height, opposition of the thumb correctly shown, hand is shown

9
UNIVERSITY OF LIMPOPO, DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY, MPANGANE E 2015,
DRAW A PERSON TEST (PSYCHOMETRICS TEST)

distinctly from arm and fingers. (f). Joints; Arm joint with elbow, shoulder, or both leg joint

shown, knee, hip, or both. (g). Proportion; Head not more than ½ or less than 1/10 of

trunk, Arms equal to trunk but not reaching knee, Legs not less than trunk not more than

twice trunk size, Feet in 2 dimensions – not more than 1/3 or less than 1/10 of leg, Both

arms and legs in two dimensions (Wern, 2015; Nagleria et al, 1991).

(h). Motor coordination; Lines firm without marked tendency to cross, gap, or overlap, all

lines firm with correct joining, Outline of head without obvious irregularities. Develop

beyond first crude circle, Conscious control apparent, trunk outline, arms and legs without

irregularities, dimensions and no tendency to narrow at point of junction with trunk,

Features symmetrical (more likely to credit in profile drawings). (i). Fine head detail, Ears

present and in correct position, eye details shown, Chin and forehead shown. (j). Profile;

Projection without transparency and errorless (Wern, 2015; Negleria et al, 1991).

(Kniel and Kniel, 2008) stated that the scoring system was quite useful as other studies

have also adapted it. They further stated that there’s quite some similarities with other

scales due to the 14 aspects being used to measure (attachment, clothing, arms, ears,

feet, hair, eyes, feet, fingers, head, legs, mouth, neck, nose, and trunk).

8. CONCLUSION

In a nutshell based on the literature of the study, it has been revealed that the Human

figure drawings has been in use for a long time and been found effective at some point,

even though there’s quite a number of researchers (see, Terre Blanch, 2013; Willcock,

Imuta, and Hayne, 2011; and Sidun and Chase, 1986) who still questions the credibility

of human figure drawing test [including KFD and other projective tests]. This shows that

10
UNIVERSITY OF LIMPOPO, DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY, MPANGANE E 2015,
DRAW A PERSON TEST (PSYCHOMETRICS TEST)

more research should be done concerning the validity and reliability of DAP, as an attempt

to lower the critiques, and make the test to be more valid and reliable by updating the

tests norms and methods of using it for effective future use.

11
UNIVERSITY OF LIMPOPO, DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY, MPANGANE E 2015,
DRAW A PERSON TEST (PSYCHOMETRICS TEST)

9. REFERENCES

Arteche, A., Bandeira, D., & Hutz, C. S. (2010). Draw-a-person test: The sex of the first-

drawn figure revisited. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 37(1), 65-69.

Bekhit, N. S., Thomas, G, V., & Jolley, R. P. (2005). The use of drawing for psychological

assessment in Britain: survey findings. British Psychology Society Journals, 78,

205– 217.

Bond, E., Southers, E., & Sproul, J. (2015). History of projective testing. Retrieved from

http://www.projectiontests.umwblogs.org

Carmody, D. P., & Crossman, A. M. (2011). Artful liars: Malingering on the draw-a-person

task. Open Criminology Journal, 4, 1 – 9.

Catte, M. (1998). Emotional Indicators in Children's Human Figure Drawings: An

Evaluation of the Draw-A-Person Test (Doctoral dissertation). University of York,

U.K. Retrieved from http://www.etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/2464/1DX208299

Crusco, M. (2013). Draw-A-Person: Screening procedure for emotional disturbance. UK,

Londo: Center for Longitudinal Studies.

Dickson, J. M., Saylor, C. F., & Finch, A. J. (1990). Personality factors, family structure,

and sex of drawn figure on the draw a person test. Journal of Personality

Assessment, 55(1&2), 362 – 366.

Dyken, E. (1996). The Draw-a-Person Task in Persons With Mental Retardation- What

Does It Measure. Research in Developmental Disability. 17(1), 1 – 13.

12
UNIVERSITY OF LIMPOPO, DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY, MPANGANE E 2015,
DRAW A PERSON TEST (PSYCHOMETRICS TEST)

Evarretta, L. L. (2014). Validity of Draw-A-Person Test as a measure of Anxiety and

Aggression Indices among Schizophrenics of Hospicio de San Juan de Dios. Asia

Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research. O2 (03) 18-23. Retrieved from

http://www.apjmr.com

Fan, R. J. (2012). A Study on the Kinetic Family Drawings by Children with Different

Family Structures. The International Journal of Arts Education, 10(1), 173 – 204.

Farylo, B., & Paludi, M. A. (2001). Research with the Draw-A-Person test: conceptual and

methodological issues. The Journal of Psychology. 119(9), 575 – 580.

Fisher, M. G. (1959). Comment on starr and marcuse's "reliability in the draw a person

test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, Journal, 302(9), 1 – 1.

Huston, A., N., &Terwilliger, R. (1995). Sex, sex role, and sexual attitudes: figure gender

in the draw a person test revisited. Journal of Personality Assessment, 65(2), 343

– 357.

Jolly, J. L. (2010). Florence L. Goodenough: Portrait of a psychologist. Pioneering

Psychology. 32, 98 – 105.

Kniel, A., & Kniel, C. (2008). The draw a person test for Ghana. Ghana, Winneba; German

Technical Cooperation.

Kubierske, F. (2008). The usefulness of draw a person test: screening procedure for

measuring emotional disturbance (DAP: SPED) in South African children (Masters

Dissertation).University of Johannesburg, South Africa.

13
UNIVERSITY OF LIMPOPO, DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY, MPANGANE E 2015,
DRAW A PERSON TEST (PSYCHOMETRICS TEST)

Kumar, D., Nizamie, S. H., Abhishek, P., & Prasanna, L. T. (2014). Identification of

suicidal ideations with the help of projective tests: A review. Asian Journal of

Psychiatry, 12, 36 – 42.

Lev-Wiesel, R., & Hershkovitz, D. (2000). Detecting violent aggressive behavior among

male prisoners through the Machover Draw-A-Person test. The Arts in

Psychotherapy, 27(3), 171 – 177.

McLeod, S. (2013). What is Validity? Retrieved from

http://www.simplypsychology.org/vailidity.htm10.

McPhee, J. P., & Wegner, K. P. (1976). Kinetic Family Drawing styles and emotionally

disturbed childhood behavior. Journal of Personality Assessment. 40(5), 487 – 491

Nagleria, J. A., McNeish, T. J., & Bardos, N. A. (1991). DAP: SPED Draw a person:

screening procedure for emotional disturbance, scoring templates. Austin, Texas:

Pro-ed an International publisher.

Ozer, S. (2010). A comparison of clinical and nonclinical groups of children on the

Bender-Gestalt and Draw a Person Tests. Procedia Social and Behavioral

sciences journal. 5, 499 – 454. DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.121.

Rehrig, G. L. (2015). Drawing comparisons between drawing performance and

developmental assessments (Master dissertation). The state University of New

Jersey, New Brunswick; New Jersey.

14
UNIVERSITY OF LIMPOPO, DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY, MPANGANE E 2015,
DRAW A PERSON TEST (PSYCHOMETRICS TEST)

Riethmiller, R. J., & Handler, L. (1997). Problematic methods and unwarranted conclusion

in DAP research: suggestions for improved research procedures. Journal of

Personality Assessment, 69(3), 459 – 475.

Sidun, N. M., & Chase, S. (1986). Graphic indicators of sexual abuse in adolescent draw-

a-person test. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 13(1), 69.

Srivastava, G., Dhal, A., Chugh, G., Mehta, Sagar, R., & Sreenivas, V. (2008). Inter- and

intra-rater reliability of the draw-a-person test among Indian children and

adolescents. Journal of Indian Association, 4(4), 88 – 94.

Ter Laak, J., De Goede, M., Aleva, A., & van Rijswijk, P. (2005). The draw-a-person test:

an Indicator of children’s cognitive and socioemotional adaptation. Journal of

Genetic Psychology, 166(1), 77 – 93.

Terre Blanche, S. (2013). A picture is worth a thousand words: An overview of drawing

as a tool for projective assessment. New Voices in Psychology, 9(1), 3-15.

Wern, E. (2015). Goodenough Draw-A-Person test. Retrieved from

http://www.depts.washington.edu./goodenoughdrawing.

Willcock, E., Imuta, K., & Hayne, H. (2011). Children’s human figure drawings do not

measure intellectual ability. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 110,

444 – 452.

Williams, T. O., Fall, M. A., Eaves, R. C., & Wood-Groves, S. (2006). The reliability of

scores for the draw-a-person intellectual ability test for children, adolescents, and

adults, Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24(2), 137 – 144.

15
UNIVERSITY OF LIMPOPO, DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY, MPANGANE E 2015,
 DRAW A PERSON TEST (PSYCHOMETRICS TEST)

Yong, G. (2015) Draw a person as an exploratory medium chapter9. Retrieved from

http://www.george.net/sites/goerge.net./files/VanNiekerke-Eval_ch9

16
UNIVERSITY OF LIMPOPO, DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY, MPANGANE E 2015,

View publication stats